Note for non-Australian visitors

In Australia "Liberal" is Right-Wing Neo-Cons; economically liberal, socially repressive, tax the poor to subsidise the rich. Republican is also a good thing, as opposed to being a lackey of the British monarchy.

Archive for ‘climate change’

During yesterdays ‘Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012)’, Senator Cameron challenged the head of the National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) over its support for science related to Coal Seam Gas (CSG) but not climate change.

“It grates a bit when some of your members don’t accept the science on climate change… So why do we have an acceptance on the science when it comes to this and you’ve got this massive opposition… about human-induced climate change.”

Senator Cameron said his question wasn’t about democracy, it was about science. “When it comes to climate change, the science is not accepted by many in the farming community. When it comes to the issue of mining then the science is going to be accepted.”

Sydney Morning Herald: Carbon tax is ‘unconstitutional’, says tax expert
This was the headline of a story run yesterday. Now not everyone is used to speaking this strange new language known as FairFox which is English mixed with Rinehart, so I have translated this story (or the first paragraph, once you have read that, you don’t really need to read any more).

Despite the headline, or the url, the actual title of the page, reading the html source code, is Carbon tax|IPA|Bryan Pape… which translates as, despite what they tell their readers, they know what they are doing. Which is an old News Corpse trick, as long as the information in the story is correct, the headline can be the opposite, because many people don’t read past the headline.

How many people will only read the headline, and walk away believing two things – it is a tax and it is unconstitutional, without questioning who the tax expert is that saying these things. The tax expert, Fairfax points out, further into the story is The University of New England academic and practising barrister, Bryan Pape, has provided legal advice to conservative policy think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, and here is his bio on the IPA website – ipa.org.au/people/bryan-pape/publications

Now to the body of the story…

A PROMINENT Australian legal expert says he believes
This is how the story starts out, translation: ‘prominent‘ means IPA hired gun, ‘legal expert‘ means IPA hired gun and ‘says he believes‘ suggests he is going for a The Castle defence It’s just… the vibe… of the thing. This is the Fairfox variation on the ABC’s default for beginning news stories with the opposition says, we now have news stories starting with IPA says… is there much difference these days anyway?

the Gillard government’s carbon tax is unconstitutional
This is how the first line continues ‘the Gillard government’s carbon tax’ means come election time, they want everyone to remember the name of the government that gave us this supposed tax. I don’t recall the last time any media outlet in this country referred to the Howard government’s GST. ‘carbon tax‘ means let’s not call it by its correct name, of carbon pricing, instead they are trying to cram the word tax into this story as many times as possible (which was 29 times on that page, screen shot below). ‘unconstitutional’ usually refers to any tax the faceless billionaires don’t want to pay (hint: all of them).

and that the three largest states stand a chance
The first line continues with reference to ‘the three largest states’ referring New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, this means someone will have to spend taxpayers money fighting this Federal Government policy, because it sure won’t be IPA, and it won’t be the Liberal Parties that led governments in those states, and it won’t be Nathan Tinkler (NSW), Clive Palmer (QLD) or Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest (WA) – the cost will be borne by the taxpayers in those states, and the legal challenge loses, well there is plenty more money where that came from. ‘stand a chance’ means the IPA aren’t convinced that any court case would be winnable, but they only need to convince the voters and in 18 months we will have a new Abbott-government who will do what IPA tells him.

of successfully overturning the legislation in the event of a High Court challenge
‘in the event of a High Court challenge’ means the IPA is still trying to goad the Liberal premiers of NSW, QLD, WA into paying for a High Court challenge, and even if they don’t they have still muddied the waters in the eyes of the readers – voters. Just because there is a possible legal challenge to anything does not mean the case is winnable, mounting a challenge doesn’t make something unconstitutional, it just means something with money is prepared to spend it on a court case rather than paying that money in tax.

The rest of the article follows on pretty much in the same way, with the exception of the following piece reporting‘federal Labor now trails the Coalition in every state and territory on both primary votes and on a two-party preferred basis’, when in fact Labor lead the 2PP (two party preferred) in South Australia and are 50-50 with the Coalition in Victoria. So apparently South Australia and Victoria have now been excluded from the Commonwealth, well that is okay, no faceless billionaire mining-magnates are based there.

The word tax appeared 29 times on this page. As Vladimir Lenin said A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Also interesting about this page, the editors pick… Abbott PM, just so the voting public get used to seeing those words together.

ABC’s Qanda was a two-sided debate between Richard Dawkins atheist and Cardinal Pell, Tony Abbotts advisor, these were the twitter highlights for those who couldn’t watch the show… or a flashback for those who did.

Craig Reucassel: of The Chaser
Pell: God chose the Jews because they were dumber than the Egyptians. Wow, don’t remember that from scripture. #qanda

Doubt and Controversy, these are words climate change deniers will use to get you to question the facts about climate change when spoken by climate scientists.

In this country – where the media is overwhelmingly dominated by one man (or his various corporations) – climate change tends to be framed in terms of climate change debate.

Apparently the jury is still out, weighing up the evidence, throwing a few ideas around and rewarding those with the most convincing argument and spin, instead of those with facts and truth on their side.

So let us all talk about this some more until we reach a conclusion – that kind of debate.

Everyone has an opinion, and believe that entitles them to have an equal say in the climate change debate, as much as climate scientists, who spent years studying these things.

Listen to climate change deniers – how often is their debating filled with vague statements, such as I feel, I believe, I heard. Read the Murdoch media, and they fill their articles with anything but science, instead they will focus on how the average Joe, Jane or Tarek feel they will be affected by climate change.

Or, we could ignore a newspaper who just wants to sell readership numbers to advertisers, and instead we could listen to a climate scientist, they will say We know, we have the research, we have studied.

By describing the rejection of climate science as debate, deniers are throwing doubt on years of science.

Murdoch’s media says NO climate change, Scientists say YES climate change, and now we have controversy, and any scientist who disagrees is being controversial.

Maybe Murdoch media will present a scientists views – without specifying what type of science they study. Science is a broad church, full of various disciplines, not all of them study climate change. Then suddenly the meme is that scientists themselves are unsure about the validity of climate change.

Murdoch’s media will then run a few articles that disagree with scientists or people whining that the cost of running their air-con in their McMansions will be more expensive, and suddenly we have a a debate, or a controversy – two sides that disagree.

The ABC will then run anti-climate change stories, all in the name of balance, it’s about having all viewpoints represented, having all sides of the debate given serious air-time.

There are many lies being spread about carbon pricing, usually by those with an agenda, either that or they can’t read.

First of all: it is not being applied yet – any business that claims it is sacking workers or raising prices now because of the carbon pricing, is blatantly lying and ripping off consumers. The pricing goes into affect from 1 July 2012.

Second: Unlike the GST which put a 10% tax on just about everything you buy, with little options for finding non-GST affected products; Carbon pricing will only be on the top 500 polluting companies. If you don’t want to pay for a product which has carbon pricing attached, simple… buy a product that is Less polluting.

If you don’t want to pay carbon pricing, choose products with less impact. Simple. Third: opponents of Carbon pricing say that it is unfair, unlike GST which is fair and balanced. No. The reverse is true. GST disproportionately affects those on lower incomes, who spend a larger proportion of their income on GST taxable products, while those that attract no-GST tend to be luxury items (which had other taxes removed in exchange for the GST). If you don’t want to pay carbon pricing, choose products with less impact. Simple. If you want to continue to screw-up the environment, that is your choice. But you pay for the privilege.

Our planet should belong to all of us, not just those who can afford to pollute it. As it is now, those who can afford to buy more things, are doing a greater proportion of damage to our air, our water, our limited resources, our planet, our life-support system. That would like saying: it is okay for a rich person to beat the stuffing out of you, because if you can afford to sue them, they have can afford the compensation. Ignoring the damage done in the meantime.

Fourth: But what about our pensioners? They worked hard all their lives and now they won’t be able to afford heating or food? WRONG. Those on low-incomes, including pensioners will be compensated. And like each and every one of us, as consumers they have a mighty power, it’s called the dollar vote – the power of choice, if they don’t want to pay for the carbon price, all they have to do is choose a different product.

Fifth: Prime Minister Gillard is not personally benefiting from this – We Are. Our children, our grandchildren, our nation, our Pacific neighbours whose countries are disappearing under water, even as I type.

Australia has about 0.3% of the world’s population, but contributes about 1.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. This puts Australians among the highest per capita emitters (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics). We are the country that is creating the mess, it is our responsibility to clean it up.

The Australian has aggressively opposed the Green Party’s agenda of addressing climate change through greater regulation and taxation of pollution. Two years ago, the paper vowed in an editorial that it would seek to destroy the party at the ballot box.

text by @redglitterx
use of Sir Henry Parkes image, or the coin, is in no way intended to imply that Parkes, or the treasury would in any way endorse the contents of this post or blog

And so far, those dismissive of climate change are out in front – by a long way. 80% when I voted. (68% dismissive + 12% doubtful)

What a complete farce – of course the climate change deniers will vote en masse to skewer the results, unless that was the objective, was it?

Which is interesting because I don’t remember surveys being done to get peoples opinions on any other science, such as physics, botany, geology, mathematics.

Although I am sure it is only a matter of time before we start canvassing whether the earth is flat or should creationism (intelligent design) be taught in science classes.

When did this scepticism about science take hold in the public debate in Australia. It’s not philosophy, it is not something where everyone’s opinion is entitled to equal air time on the national broadcaster.

Nor, is this 70s style conciousness raising where I feel becomes more important than I know especially when said by someone who has spend a career studying issues as compared to, say, an office worker, or banker, or a Cardinal, who think their opinion should hold as much weight as climate scientists.

This is climate scepticism on par with Murdoch’s News Limited. But there is a difference between News Ltd and the ABC, News Ltd are trying to make a profit, promote the agenda of their own, sell advertising space, create fear, and keep the people voting Tory. As much as we might not like it, News Ltd have a duty to maximise profits for shareholders, not save the planet. And if for some reason, action on climate change became profitable for Murdoch, then News Ltd may probably start getting alarmist over lack of action.

But from the ABC, what is their agenda? This is beyond mere scepticism, this is heading into rabid climate change denial territory.

This is not balance, this is agenda setting. It is no longer objectively reporting news, ABC are actively trying to change opinions and beliefs.

Can we now finally stop the myth that the ABC has a left-wing bias?

disclaimer: the number 99/100 used in this image is not based on any real information, but I feel it to be true, it is my opinion

image by @redglitterx
text by @redglitterx
references to ABC, News Ltd, Rupert Murdoch, and Climate Scientists are in no way intended to imply that they would in anyway endorse the contents of this blog, but I don’t know, I haven’t asked them